The way I see it, the Sox are doing exactly what they need to in order to maximize their profits with our fanbase. Spending too much comes with the risk of losing tens of millions if the team doesn't reach expectations. Conversely, rebuilding properly to produce a true winner reduces revenue in the short term. Building a high 70 to low 80 winner consistently, affording for luck, has allowed the team to appear competitive (and produced significant revenue). I don't think that fans will go away if we rebuild is an issue so much as the lost short term revenue. Keeping our average team out there is a successful model for them, at least as long as we continue to support this system with our money.

The way I see it, the Sox are doing exactly what they need to in order to maximize their profits with our fanbase. Spending too much comes with the risk of losing tens of millions if the team doesn't reach expectations. Conversely, rebuilding properly to produce a true winner reduces revenue in the short term. Building a high 70 to low 80 winner consistently, affording for luck, has allowed the team to appear competitive (and produced significant revenue). I don't think that fans will go away if we rebuild is an issue so much as the lost short term revenue. Keeping our average team out there is a successful model for them, at least as long as we continue to support this system with our money.

Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't these two ideas linked via a cause-and-effect relationship? In other words, the Sox lose money in the short-term because fans avoid paying to see a rebuilding team flounder.

Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't these two ideas linked via a cause-and-effect relationship? In other words, the Sox lose money in the short-term because fans avoid paying to see a rebuilding team flounder.

TV contracts pay the bills. The White Sox, as most teams, use ticket sales as profit.

TV contracts pay the bills. The White Sox, as most teams, use ticket sales as profit.

You're right, although I wonder to what extent TV contracts may be affected by season-to-season changes in ratings. For example, if WGN America signs a fifteen-year contract with the White Sox to cover selected games not carried by Comcast, would such a contract carry an "out clause" if ratings dropped significantly from one season to the next? Would WGN be allowed to void the contact on the basis that the Sox don't attract enough viewers, and use the time-slots to air other material? I must adit that I have no idea how television contracts work, so I'm asking if anyone knows more than I do (extremely likely).

This is a great discussion, and one I've been thinking a lot about while watching the Nationals. These were the former Expos, and now they are considered the elite of baseball. Meanwhile we are looking like a patchwork team of aging vets and AAA players (Sale and maybe Reed excluded. ) Can't say we're playing it cheap. While you weren't looking, we're back up to $120 million in payroll, but there still is this feeling that 85 wins is as good as can be expected.

Baseball philosophies have changed, really in the last few years. I will date it from the Evan Longoria long term rookie year contract that the Rays did locking him up through his arbitration eligibility years and beyond. It set up the new formula for building a good team. That is, be bad enough to get good draft picks. Early on, lock em up to long term contracts though their prime years and develop a youthful core. I think television revenue has allowed even the small market teams to start doing this. The result is that it becomes tough for the free spenders to find the talent on the market (see the Yankees who are left making due with Hafner and Youkilis. ) For better or worse this is the way the Cubs seem to be going.

This leads to the curse of mediocrity that he Sox are in. We're not bad enough to get the draft picks that can get us he Harpers or Strasburgs. Nor is there young talent out there to buy. Unlike the Cubs, I don't think we could survive a tear down and rebuild. In short I don't know what the solution is, but I hope some of you folks that are a lot smarter than me on this can make some suggestions.

I wouldn't mind a new ownership group to take over. Jerry isn't really the Marlins, but he's been raking in $30M profits the last 8-9 years and has also seen the ownerships initial investment of $20M grow to over $400M. Contrary to his statements, they're taking dividends each year on the investment. I guess I wouldn't really have a problem with taking something small each year, but you really shouldn't operate a professional sports team make huge profits on a year basis.

I know he's at the forefront of the latest movement to limit costs on unproven talent - i.e, the draft and international signings, but I really wish they would spend just a couple of bucks on minor league development, instead of operating the minor league operation on a shoestring.

I hear what you are saying relative to the organization's stubborness regarding drafting, paying and developing young talent. However, be careful what you wish for regarding new ownership. The White Sox are for most part, debt free while other clubs like the Cubs are paying service on about a half a billion dollars of debt. The Sox are worth a lot less than the Cubs but the point is, once a team is sold, the cost basis is reset, the debt service clock starts ticking and the team has that much less to spend, unless it can find alternative revenue stream sources.

I hear what you are saying relative to the organization's stubborness regarding drafting, paying and developing young talent. However, be careful what you wish for regarding new ownership. The White Sox are for most part, debt free while other clubs like the Cubs are paying service on about a half a billion dollars of debt. The Sox are worth a lot less than the Cubs but the point is, once a team is sold, the cost basis is reset, the debt service clock starts ticking and the team has that much less to spend, unless it can find alternative revenue stream sources.

Really wonder if JR's loyalty, while admirable, is and has been hurting this team because it never allows for true change to take place. By no means am I going to give up on this season after 9 games but there is just something about the lack of action in the offseason that makes a .500 start hard to stomach. We just kind of sat back and reappeared with a slightly worse team than when the regular season ended last year.

Really wonder if JR's loyalty, while admirable, is and has been hurting this team because it never allows for true change to take place. By no means am I going to give up on this season after 9 games but there is just something about the lack of action in the offseason that makes a .500 start hard to stomach. We just kind of sat back and reappeared with a slightly worse team than when the regular season ended last year.

This is another great point, as it has been the subject of discussion here before. Reinsdorf does seem to have a hard time cutting ties with people who aren't performing their jobs adequately. On one hand, it's admirable that he's willing to stick with people in spite of their struggles, as even people who are good at their jobs can go through tough times. On the other hand, Reinsdorf's unwillingness to make changes in the structure of the Sox organization has clearly set the team back, perhaps by several years.

Robin Ventura is an obvious improvement over Ozzie Guillen for many reasons: I won't belabor the reasons for this here, as Ozzie is not the subject of this thread, but I will state that most people agree that Guillen should have been fired before the end of 2011. Why wasn't he? Was Reinsdorf unwilling to pay someone not to work for him? Was he reluctant to severe ties with someone who had been such a prominent part of the White Sox 2005 World Championship? The answer is not immediately clear, but Jerry clearly had reservations about making a move, and did not take action until he no longer had a choice.

Loyalty is something of a double-edge sword, as it helps to build the trust and mutual understanding that is required for an organization to function efficiently (or so it would seem). Yet, loyalty can also drive executives to make decisions that are in the best interests of friendship, rather than the best interests of the team.

Really wonder if JR's loyalty, while admirable, is and has been hurting this team because it never allows for true change to take place.

Reinsdorf keeping the people that he is able to control has been admirable to ownership because of ever increasing team worth and profit. He is doing exactly what ownership wants, making money for them. This club is being run by a very smart money man. With the lease the Sox got, they probably will someday rebuild prior to 2026 but not before their tv contract expires, 2016? The mediocre style they have been putting on the field will get a better tv contract than a rebuild now. Spending a lot of money to try to get a perennial playoff club is a gamble that does not have to taken. Busness as usual is keeping them all fat.

I hear what you are saying relative to the organization's stubborness regarding drafting, paying and developing young talent. However, be careful what you wish for regarding new ownership. The White Sox are for most part, debt free while other clubs like the Cubs are paying service on about a half a billion dollars of debt. The Sox are worth a lot less than the Cubs but the point is, once a team is sold, the cost basis is reset, the debt service clock starts ticking and the team has that much less to spend, unless it can find alternative revenue stream sources.

You provide an excellent point. And that is the Cubs' problem at this point. I don't know the exact figures, but I do know the Cubs had to cut payroll because of MLB debt to salary ratios. Jerry did do right for the Sox that they have zero debt. I believe the Sox only pay a small rent charge if they have over a certain attendance (1.5M?) and none if below.